The decision to order separate trials is within the discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is found. Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 305 (Wyo. 1992); Tremblay v. Reid, 700 P.2d 391, 398 (Wyo. 1985). On appeal, this court considers an abuse of discretion to have occurred when a court exceeds the bounds of reason or commits an error of law. Combs v. Sherry-Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo. 1993); Martinez v. State, 611 P.2d 831, 838 (Wyo. 1980).

The movant carries the burden of bringing himself within the rule's provisions. Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 301 (Wyo. 1992). An order denying relief under Rule 60(b) is appealable. Dexter, 649 P.2d at 681.

U.S. Aviation, Inc. v. Wyoming Avionics, Inc., Wyo., 664 P.2d 121 (1983).Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 301 (Wyo. 1992) (quoting S.C. Ryan, Inc. v. Lowe, 753 P.2d 580, 582 (Wyo. 1988)). See also, Spitzer v. Spitzer, 777 P.2d 587, 592 (Wyo. 1989); State ex rel. TRL by Avery v. RLP, 772 P.2d 1054, 1057 (Wyo. 1989); Claassen, 756 P.2d at 193; Hochhalter v. Great Western Enter., 708 P.2d 666, 668 (Wyo. 1985); Booth v. Magee Carpet Co., 548 P.2d 1252, 1254 (Wyo. 1976).

The movant carries the burden of bringing himself within the rule's provisions. Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 301 (Wyo. 1992). An order denying relief under Rule 60(b) is appealable. Dexter, 649 P.2d at 681.

Our review of this sequence of determinations by the trial court is limited to a determination of whether in resolving these questions the trial court abused its discretion. Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 301 (Wyo. 1992); followed in Whitney, 892 P.2d at 794; Vanasse, 847 P.2d at 996. Fluor Daniel, 956 P.2d at 1134.

[¶ 17] As an element of their third issue, the Beavises contend the district court erred in bifurcating the negligence claim against Hazlett from the negligent hiring claim against CCMH and the negligent training/supervision claim against Dr. Horan. The decision to order separate trials is within the discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is found. Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 305 (Wyo. 1992); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Shrader, 882 P.2d 813, 829 (Wyo. 1994); Tremblay v. Reid, 700 P.2d 391, 398 (Wyo. 1985); Thomas v. Roth, 386 P.2d 926, 927 (Wyo. 1963). In past cases, we have approved of district courts' decisions to conduct separate trials on distinct and independent issues.

We review the ruling of a trial court on motions presented pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(1) and (6) only for an abuse of discretion. Vanasse [v. Ramsey], 847 P.2d [993] at 996 [(Wyo. 1993)]; Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 301 (Wyo. 1992); U.S. Aviation, Inc. v. Wyoming Avionics, Inc., 664 P.2d 121, 126-27 (Wyo. 1983). Essentially the resolution of such motions is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, as defined in Martin v. State, 720 P.2d 894, 897 (Wyo. 1986):

Our review of this sequence of determinations by the trial court is limited to a determination of whether in resolving these questions the trial court abused its discretion. Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 301 (Wyo. 1992); followed in Whitney, 892 P.2d at 794; Vanasse, 847 P.2d at 996. Fluor Daniel urges that its failure to answer the Complaint within the time provided in the rules was the result of excusable neglect and that the default should have been set aside pursuant to WYO. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1).

Vanasse v. Ramsay, 847 P.2d 993, 996 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Claassen v. Nord, 756 P.2d 189, 193 (Wyo. 1988)). The party who is seeking to have an entry of default vacated must establish that he is entitled to such relief. Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 301 (Wyo. 1992). The reasons for setting aside a judgment under W.R.C.P. 60(b) are relevant in determining whether good cause has been shown for vacating an entry of default.

The granting of relief pursuant to that rule is a matter of the exercise of discretion by the trial court, and appellate review is limited to the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion. Carlson v. Carlson, 836 P.2d 297, 301 (Wyo. 1992) ( quoting S.C. Ryan, Inc. v. Lowe, 753 P.2d 580, 582 (Wyo. 1988)). A court abuses its discretion when it exceeds the bounds of reason or commits an error of law, with the ultimate standard being whether or not the court could have reasonably concluded as it did. Sharpe v. Sharpe, 902 P.2d 210, 213 (Wyo. 1995).